mikenz66 wrote:As I said, they are not contradictory, they are different instructions for different types of concentration.

Each of these approaches [absorption then vipassana (e.g. Brahm)/concentration and vipassanadeveloped simultaneously (e.g. Mahasi)] are elaborations sutta material. I think that's rather clear from Geoff's posts above. Which approach is "better" is, in my view, a matter of individual proclivities and available teachers.

Mike

My understanding must be deficient; I had understood it to be the case that Ajahn Brahm described jhana 1-4 + 5-8 as being devoid of material form, preceded by a light nimitta, whereas the Suttas offer a different understanding of jhana 1-4 and which are silent on light nimitta.

OK, perhaps I should spell out what I was saying. Several people here say that what is taught by Goenka, Mahasi, etc is not in the Suttas. Naturally, I disagree. The focussing on a variety of objects is based on the Satipatthana Sutta and the various other suttas that Geoff kindly quoted above (many of which are AN Suttas not easily available to me - I presume he's giving us the PTS translations). The Mahasi teachers are not claiming to be teaching absorption jhana so it's no surprise that their instructions are different from Ajahn Brahm. They do claim that the jhana factors can be highly developed by focussing on "non-conceptual objects (as explained by Geoff's sutta quotes). Of course, the details of the particular instructions that Mahasi-style teachers use are not in the suttas, just like the instructions of every teacher.

Ajahn Brahm says that he's teaching according to the anapanasati and other suttas. He describes using the breath nimitta (the bright lights - a "conceptual" mind-created object) and obtaining complete absorption in all jhanas. Such details of use of the nimitta is not in the suttas. Ironically, for those who think that the commentaries are just an academic exercise, and not based on the experience of ancients who practised well, this method is spelled out in some detail in the commentaries. It also seems to be a common experience among meditators.

Some other teachers also teach a highly absorbed jhana. E.g. Pa Auk Sayadaw.

Other teachers have different interpretations of the Anapanasati sutta from Ajahn Brahm. They give different instructions, and their definition of jhana is not so absorbed (e.g. Ven Thanissaro).

All of which doesn't particularly bother me. The quotations from U Pandita explain quite clearly that different objects lead to different results. This is also discussed in detail in the commentaries. And I can certainly see differences between the results of using different objects (though I'm no expert!).

My conclusion is that developing samadhi with different objects can lead to anything from the highly-absorbed Brahm/Commentary Jhana, though moderate absorption, to the relatively unabsorbed "vipassana jhana" described by Vens Mahasi/U Pandita. The jhana described by some other teachers, such as Bhante Vimalaramsi, seems to also be in the latter category.

Some members seem to want to prove that there is one particular "right way" described in the Suttas. I tend to think that there are are several different approaches hinted at in the suttas, and developed by various ancient and modern teachers. I'm interested in learning from the experiences of various ancient and modern teachers, not denying that experience.

Alex123 wrote:I've never knew (Or have forgot it if I knew) that this is how Abh defines paṭighasaññā. I don't think that at THAT stage (after 4th Jhana) nānattasaññā means unwholesome mental states (Kāmasaññā, byāpādasaññā, vihiṃsāsaññā). After all, Kāmasaññā was transcended to reach the 1st Jhāna. "Paṭhamaṃ jhānaṃ samāpannassa kāmasaññā niruddhā hoti." So in this context paṭighasaññā means something else, rūpasaññānaṃ + nānattasaññānaṃ. The feeling of multitude of forms impacting sense organs.

Dear Alex

Hope you don't mind, but I was just thinking of your previous use of the Abhidhamma definition of paṭighasaññā in another forum.

I think your underlined text is about as close as can be to my understanding of how DN 15 explains paṭigha, except I suspect you restrict the indriyas to the 5 material ones, while I accept MN 28 in explicitly allowing for rupakhandha to arise from mind-contact.

One may experience domanassa of being tired with first 3 Jhanas. Even pleasant feelings may tire one out. So equinimity is less agitating.

I think a broad survey of the suttas will show that the redactors did not confuse domanassa (a cetasika vedana) with dukkha (a kayika vedana).

mikenz66 wrote:My conclusion is that developing samadhi with different objects can lead to anything from the highly-absorbed Brahm/Commentary Jhana, though moderate absorption, to the relatively unabsorbed "vipassana jhana" described by Vens Mahasi/U Pandita. Mike

I wonder if anyone would dare make the suggestion that "vipassana jhana" by any other name would fit in nicely with the Commentarial "upacara samadhi". Not a state to be sniffed at, given the esteem given to this state (albeit not with the Commentarial name) by the Pancangika Sutta, AN 5.28 -

“And what, monks, is the cultivation of the noble five-factored right samadhi?

(1 to 4 is the standard 4 Jhana-s formula with similes)

5 Furthermore, monks, the review-sign is well grasped by the monk, well attended to [well
minded], well held up in mind, well penetrated with wisdom.

Suppose, monks, one were to review another, one standing were
to review another sitting, or one sitting were to review another lying down,
even so, monks, the review-sign is well grasped by the monk, well attended to [well minded], well
kept in mind [well reflected upon], well penetrated with wisdom.

This, monks, is the fifth cultivation of the noble five-factored right samadhi.

As for the term "Commentary Jhana", I'm not sure if it is even as absorbed as the Jhana-s as explained by Ajahn Brahm. For example, the Commentary to MN 111 suggests that one is noting lots of phenomena, quite unlike the model in DN 9, where only one "object" is specified for each Jhana, and which serves as the basis for AB's exposition on what happens when moving from normal consciousness to 1st Jhana.

Sylvester wrote:
I wonder if anyone would dare make the suggestion that "vipassana jhana" by any other name would fit in nicely with the Commentarial "upacara samadhi". Not a state to be sniffed at, given the esteem given to this state (albeit not with the Commentarial name) by the Pancangika Sutta, AN 5.28 -

Certainly the Mahasi literature does mentions upacara samadhi (access concentration) as the minimum needed to suppress the hindrances and work on gaining insight. They are not talking about just sitting around thinking about the three characteristics...

daverupa wrote:My understanding must be deficient; I had understood it to be the case that Ajahn Brahm described jhana 1-4 + 5-8 as being devoid of material form, preceded by a light nimitta, whereas the Suttas offer a different understanding of jhana 1-4 and which are silent on light nimitta.

I don't think AB has ever suggested that "rupa" disappears in the 4 Jhanas; what goes is cognition/consciousness of the kāmā, based on the "vivicceva kamehi" pericope.

I know there has been skepticism about the Uppakkilesa Sutta, MN 128 and Gayasisa Sutta's (AN 8s) reference to the lightshow, but these are at least 2 suttas which discuss nimittas. http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... sa#p116113" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mikenz66 wrote:Certainly the Mahasi literature does mentions upacara samadhi (access concentration) as the minimum needed to suppress the hindrances and work on gaining insight.

This, I'm not so certain. That big 1966 hullabaloo between the Mahasi camp and the Kheminda camp in fact turned on allegations that the khanika samadhi promoted by the Mahasi camp fell short of the Commentarial upacara samadhi.

I think it's probably scholastic obsession with nomenclature, rather than concern for the connotation of the denotation.

Which probably explains why AN 5.28 leaves the 5th factor of Samma Samadhi unnamed. The Buddha probably foresaw the sticks-&-stones that would fly when trying to name such a variably different experience!

mikenz66 wrote:As I said, they are not contradictory, they are different instructions for different types of concentration.

Each of these approaches [absorption then vipassana (e.g. Brahm)/concentration and vipassanadeveloped simultaneously (e.g. Mahasi)] are elaborations sutta material. I think that's rather clear from Geoff's posts above. Which approach is "better" is, in my view, a matter of individual proclivities and available teachers.

Mike

My understanding must be deficient; I had understood it to be the case that Ajahn Brahm described jhana 1-4 + 5-8 as being devoid of material form, preceded by a light nimitta, whereas the Suttas offer a different understanding of jhana 1-4 and which are silent on light nimitta.

OK, perhaps I should spell out what I was saying. Several people here say that what is taught by Goenka, Mahasi, etc is not in the Suttas. Naturally, I disagree. The focussing on a variety of objects is based on the Satipatthana Sutta and the various other suttas that Geoff kindly quoted above (many of which are AN Suttas not easily available to me - I presume he's giving us the PTS translations). The Mahasi teachers are not claiming to be teaching absorption jhana so it's no surprise that their instructions are different from Ajahn Brahm. They do claim that the jhana factors can be highly developed by focussing on "non-conceptual objects (as explained by Geoff's sutta quotes). Of course, the details of the particular instructions that Mahasi-style teachers use are not in the suttas, just like the instructions of every teacher.

Ajahn Brahm says that he's teaching according to the anapanasati and other suttas. He describes using the breath nimitta (the bright lights - a "conceptual" mind-created object) and obtaining complete absorption in all jhanas. Such details of use of the nimitta is not in the suttas. Ironically, for those who think that the commentaries are just an academic exercise, and not based on the experience of ancients who practised well, this method is spelled out in some detail in the commentaries. It also seems to be a common experience among meditators.

Some other teachers also teach a highly absorbed jhana. E.g. Pa Auk Sayadaw.

Other teachers have different interpretations of the Anapanasati sutta from Ajahn Brahm. They give different instructions, and their definition of jhana is not so absorbed (e.g. Ven Thanissaro).

All of which doesn't particularly bother me. The quotations from U Pandita explain quite clearly that different objects lead to different results. This is also discussed in detail in the commentaries. And I can certainly see differences between the results of using different objects (though I'm no expert!).

My conclusion is that developing samadhi with different objects can lead to anything from the highly-absorbed Brahm/Commentary Jhana, though moderate absorption, to the relatively unabsorbed "vipassana jhana" described by Vens Mahasi/U Pandita. The jhana described by some other teachers, such as Bhante Vimalaramsi, seems to also be in the latter category.

Some members seem to want to prove that there is one particular "right way" described in the Suttas. I tend to think that there are are several different approaches hinted at in the suttas, and developed by various ancient and modern teachers. I'm interested in learning from the experiences of various ancient and modern teachers, not denying that experience.

Mike

Well said.

Just to clarify: I respect Mahasi, Goenka etc. and their effort they put in the dhamma. The teachings by those teachers can certainly be advantageous for people and probably even lead to great insights. If at any time I came across impolitely (towards either members or teachers) I hereby apologize, it was not meant like that.

However, this thread is about what Jhana is, so I post my view about it and why I think absorption is important. By the way, I think the absorptions are described in the suttas, although sadly not always that literally - or sometimes things get wrongly translated. I'm glad Sylvester knows more about Pali than I do to support this.

Also, not all people experience light nimattas, a "body" of happiness is also possible, and maybe even other things. That's probably why nimatta is not described that often. The "body" really feels like a body although it is not physical, it's mental. It could be that that is what the Buddha referred to with the term 'body' sometimes.

Just to clarify: I respect Mahasi, Goenka etc. and their effort they put in the dhamma. The teachings by those teachers can certainly be advantageous for people and probably even lead to great insights.

However, this thread is about what Jhana is, so I post my view about it and why I think absorption is important. If at any time I came across impolitely (towards either members or teachers) I hereby apologize, it was not meant like that. By the way, I think the absorptions are described in the suttas, although sadly not that literally - or wrongly translated.

I'm glad Sylvester knows more about Pali than I do to support this.

With metta,
Reflection

Sure. I'm much more interested in finding out stuff than "proving" stuff about Dhamma...

However, there do seem to be a number of definitions of jhana and it's interesting that Vens Mahasi, U Pandita, etc, argue that a non-absorption approach can lead to the same strength of jhana factors as the one-pointed jhana. There seems to be general agreement on all sides (from "hard" Brahm/Visuddhimagga-style absorption, through softer absorption, to "vipassana jhana") that it is the development of those jhana factors that suppresses the hindrances and makes insight possible.

So is it the development of the jhana factors, or the absorption itself that is important?

In MN140, Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Properties we read:

"One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure & bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of space and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated. One discerns that 'If I were to direct equanimity as pure and bright as this towards the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception and to develop the mind along those lines, that would be fabricated.' One neither fabricates nor mentally fashions for the sake of becoming or un-becoming. This being the case, one is not sustained by anything in the world (does not cling to anything in the world). Unsustained, one is not agitated. Unagitated, one is totally unbound right within. One discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

So the meditator, having developed 4th-jhana level equanimity, sees that the formless attainments would be nice, but still fabricated and unsatisfactory... So the point seems to be to have the factors to enable that discernment, not to have the factors to have the jhana.

mikenz66 wrote:. . . that it is the development of those jhana factors that suppresses the hindrances and makes insight possible.

But if one supresses the hindrances then how can one practice this aspect of the Sartipatthana Sutta?:

IV. The Contemplation of Mental Objects
1. The Five Hindrances
And how, monks, does a monk live contemplating mental objects in mental objects?

Herein, monks, a monk lives contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances.

How, monks, does a monk live contemplating mental objects in the mental objects of the five hindrances?

Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me," or when sense-desire is not present, he knows, "There is no sense-desire in me." He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be. . . .

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

mikenz66 wrote:. . . that it is the development of those jhana factors that suppresses the hindrances and makes insight possible.

But if one suppresses the hindrances then how can one practice this aspect of the Sartipatthana Sutta?:

And the answer is?

Perhaps this is knowledge that would need to have been developed in order to attain either absorption or vipassana jhana?

He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be. . . .

Ajahn Braham, Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, Page 29 wrote:
In this chapter and the next I will explain in detail the five
hindrances, obstacles that you will meet in your meditation and
that you should learn to overcome. These obstacles to deep meditation
are called in the Pali language nıvarana. Literally that means “closing a
door” or “obstructing entering into something,” and this is exactly what
the hindrances do. They stop you from entering into the deep absorp-
tion states, or jhanas.

mikenz66 wrote:. . . that it is the development of those jhana factors that suppresses the hindrances and makes insight possible.

But if one suppresses the hindrances then how can one practice this aspect of the Sartipatthana Sutta?:

And the answer is?

Perhaps this is knowledge that would need to have been developed in order to attain either absorption or vipassana jhana?

He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be. . . .

Ajahn Braham, Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond, Page 29 wrote:
In this chapter and the next I will explain in detail the five
hindrances, obstacles that you will meet in your meditation and
that you should learn to overcome. These obstacles to deep meditation
are called in the Pali language nıvarana. Literally that means “closing a
door” or “obstructing entering into something,” and this is exactly what
the hindrances do. They stop you from entering into the deep absorp-
tion states, or jhanas.

Mike

They may be obstacles to deep meditation, but that does not mean they are obstacles to insight, which does not necessarily require "deep meditation." The vipassana jhanas are not so deep as to supress the hindrances, but deep enough so that the hindrances do not overwhelm the mind.

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

tiltbillings wrote:" The vipassana jhanas are not so deep as to supress the hindrances, but deep enough so that the hindrances do not overwhelm the mind.

It might just be the vaguaries of the English language, but these two could well be the same thing. Does suppressed mean completely absent, or just held in check?

Metta,
Retro.

I take suppress as meaning to push out of sight, or out of awareness. The heavy duty absorbed jhanas (or samadhi), especially as one goes up the ladder, can significantly suppress these things for quite sometime after coming out of the meditation, which can be a basis for misinterpreatation of what one has "attained."

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

tiltbillings wrote:The vipassana jhanas are not so deep as to supress the hindrances, but deep enough so that the hindrances do not overwhelm the mind.

A hindrance is either present or absent. With the attainment of access samādhi the hindrances are abandoned for that duration. I'm pretty sure that the vipassanā teachers say the same about momentary samādhi, but it would seem that with momentary samādhi there is more opportunity for hindrances to manifest.